After 2020, Report Urged Caution in Deploying National Guard in L.A.
During the volatile early days of the racial justice protests in 2020, city officials in Los Angeles at first resisted calling for National Guard assistance before deciding that troops were needed to control crowds.
The Guard troops, arriving in Humvees with combat gear, acted as a supplement to the local police, providing security at shopping centers and at City Hall. Still, their presence met with public resistance in a city that has a history of high-profile confrontations between protesters and the police. In the aftermath of the 2020 response, the nonprofit National Police Foundation warned that future National Guard deployments in Los Angeles should come with coordinated messaging before, during and afterward 'to avoid them being seen as an occupying force.'
Yet as protests returned to the city over the weekend in response to a series of federal immigration raids, there has been no coordinated messaging or even agreement about the deployment of the National Guard. President Trump ordered the troops into Los Angeles, even as state and local politicians warned that doing so would inflame tensions rather than ease them.
'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said on Monday, announcing that the state would sue the Trump administration over the deployment.
When and how to use the National Guard were among the many lessons from raucous demonstrations over policing that broke out across the country in 2020 in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd. Many after-action reports and independent reviews blamed police departments for mishandling protests, citing insufficient training and militarized responses that made tense situations worse.
Some police departments, such as the one in Raleigh, N.C., were found to have used pepper spray indiscriminately. Denver officers were found to have inappropriately used weapons such as tear gas and pepper-spray balls against people who were yelling about officer behavior but not involved in any physical resistance. Officers in Portland, Ore., where protests persisted for months, used force more than 6,000 times — and a federal review found that some uses were contrary to what is allowed under policy guidelines, such as when officers used a weapon against someone because that person had engaged in 'furtive conversation.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CaaStle Meltdown: P180 Sues ‘The Hunsicker Enterprise' for Conspiracy
It took Christine Hunsicker 14 years to build CaaStle up into what looked like a pioneering fashion rental service with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a $1.4 billion valuation. But it took almost no time at all for the start-up case study to move from helping to buy fashion brands to devolving almost entirely into scandal. More from WWD Vince Sees Q4 Sales and Profitability Gains, but Projects Q1 Declines Amid Macro Uncertainties Fashion's Enron? P180 Blasts CaaStle's Christine Hunsicker in Fraud Lawsuit CaaStle Gets $2.75M Bridge Loan to Plan Chapter 11 Filing and Weigh Strategic Transactions Hunsicker was working with Brendan Hoffman's P180 to buy control of Vince Holding Corp. in late January and just two months later was out as CaaStle's chief executive officer, accused of doctoring financial statements, racking up losses of more than $510 million and more. The narrative is flipping again, from business breakdown to legal fallout. Already law enforcement was said to be investigating. Now P180 — which was cofounded by Hoffman and Hunsicker and minority-owned by CaaStle — is arguing in a new federal lawsuit that Hunsicker is more than a solitary bad actor, but the 'ringleader of a conspiracy' that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. 'This case is a tale of lies, betrayal and cover up,' said the P180 suit, which was filed May 27 and also names Jaswinder Pal Singh, George Goldenberg, Scott Callon and Chirag Jain as defendants. They are all tied to CaaStle. A spokesperson for the rental service did not immediately address WWD questions regarding the company or the suit on Tuesday. Hunsicker could not be reached. The federal case follows similar lines as a New York state suit that P180 filed against CaaStle, but adds more details and implicates more players. It is still Hunsicker at the center, though. Hoffman had worked with her before, during his first stint as CEO of Vince, when he dabbled in rental. But it was later, after he left the top job at Wolverine Worldwide in 2023, that Hunsicker made him a real rental believer. According to the suit, Hoffman came to believe that, 'Apparel retailers could reclaim — and perhaps even multiply — their valuation by increasing their marginal gains on discounted merchandise. For years, valuation of apparel companies had declined to be just pennies per dollar of revenue. Hunsicker promised e-commerce scale — specifically, technology and logistics that would enable regular clothing shipments to customers on a massive level — that would allow apparel companies to increase their margin on what otherwise would be discounted merchandise.' In a nutshell, the premise was that renting out instead of discounting goods that don't sell at full price would boost margins. It was a revelation profound enough that Hoffman created P180, marrying his expertise and relationships with Hunsicker's 'self-proclaimed technological and e-commerce prowess,' the suit said. 'What Hoffman did not know — but which eventually has become clear — is that Hunsicker is a world-class fraudster ranking alongside the likes of Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes,' the suit claimed. 'She lied to the world to make it appear that CaaStle was a success, lied specifically to Hoffman about CaaStle and hid CaaStle's financial data from Hoffman. She presented herself as a skillful and successful entrepreneur who built a robust e-commerce business, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for it and commanded a board of notable leaders in corporate governance. 'Hunsicker, though, did not act alone. She had co-conspirators…with whom she created her house of cards. Hunsicker and her co-conspirators repeatedly stated or implied that CaaStle had a large scale, a huge subscriber base and spectacular financials.' Instead of 'hundreds of thousands of subscribers and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, CaaStle itself had just a fraction of those subscribers, barely had any revenue, had supposedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars it received from investors, and had no viable business,' the suit said. 'The whole thing was a sham perpetuated by a pattern of persistent lying, obfuscation and, eventually, cover-up.' The suit repeatedly refers to the alleged conspiracy as 'The Hunsicker Enterprise.' Susan Scafidi, founder and director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School, said the complaint 'recasts' the scandal, replacing a single mastermind with a conspiracy. 'It appears intended not only to get ahead of a government investigation but also to distribute the blame — and thus the potential financial liability — for alleged extreme financial misrepresentations, and also to tap into the enhanced damages available under RICO,' Scafidi said. 'If, as JFK noted, success has many fathers but failure is an orphan, this lawsuit aims to bring in as many key CaaStle players as possible for paternity tests — and the discovery process is likely to be in-depth and painful. 'The concept behind CaaStle was very compelling, and from a social perspective it's a pity that the circular and sharing economies of fashion seem so hard to monetize. But the big winners here may be the legal teams working to unravel the plot twists,' she said. There will be plenty to work with. P180's suit claims that 'The Hunsicker Enterprise' induced it to take self-dealing loans and had money 'fraudulently transferred out' of its bank account to both CaaStle and personal accounts. The alleged conspirators also overstated CaaStle's capabilities while P180 lined up investments in Vince and Altuzarra. Separately, CaaStle denied allegations in two cases filed against it in state court, one by a company that owns the name Express over use of the name Express Style Trial and the other by P180. CaaStle tried to get the state court suit by P180 thrown out, claiming it doesn't have standing to bring the case. But a P180 spokesperson said, 'CaaStle filed a motion to dismiss on a technicality that will soon be remedied and will not prevent the case from moving forward.' Best of WWD The Biggest Legal Battles Shaping the Fashion Industry Today PETA Asks Lululemon About Slaughterhouse Practices China's Livestreaming Star Viya Fined $210 Million for Tax Evasion
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Gold Card Visa Launches: How to Apply
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration has rolled out a website to register interest for its $5 million "gold card" visa. "Thousands have been calling and asking how they can sign up to ride a beautiful road in gaining access to the Greatest Country and Market anywhere in the World," Trump wrote in a post on TruthSocial on Wednesday. The president first proposed a gold card program that would offer U.S. residency to individuals who invest $5 million in the country. It is one of the few pathways to citizenship unveiled by the Trump administration. Visitors to are asked to provide their name, region, and email address, and indicate whether they are applying as an individual or a business, to receive a notification as soon as access becomes available. After applicants inquire, the website will display a message that reads: "You'll be the first to hear when access opens." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
